The extent to which crop insurance programs have resulted in additional land being brought into production has been a topic of considerable debate. We consider multiequation structural models of acreage response, insurance participation, CRP enrollment, and input usage. Our analysis focuses on corn and soybean production in the Corn Belt and wheat and barley production in the Upper Great Plains. Our results confirm that increased participation in insurance programs provokes statistically significant acreage responses in some cases, though the response is very modest in every case. In the most extreme cases, 30% decreases in premiums as a result of increased subsidies provoke acreage increases ranging from 0.2% to 1.1%. A number of policy simulations involving increases in premium subsidies are considered. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.
This study examines the need for crop insurance for litchi production in northern Vietnam and how farmers might participate in such a program. Hypothetical insurance programs were developed which proposed all‐risk coverage based on area yields. This coverage was offered to farmers to determine both their interest in the program and how insurance features and farmer characteristics affected their decision to buy insurance. Farmers were also surveyed regarding their production practices, price and yield expectations, and financial and personal characteristics. Even before considering other program costs and government budget constraints, there is not a strong case for establishing a crop insurance program here. Results indicate that while farmer participation would be significant, crop insurance is not needed to achieve policy goals like raising farmer income or guaranteeing subsistence levels of income. Crop insurance is not needed to promote litchi production, which is already expanding rapidly due to its high profitability relative to other farm enterprises. In their choice of coverages, farmers preferred higher yield guarantee levels and lower indemnity prices. Estimated premiums were quite low when expressed as a percent of expected revenue, and farmers were not responsive to changes in premiums. Econometric analysis indicated that high income farmers were more likely to participate, but other farmer characteristics seemed to matter little. Anecdotal evidence suggested that farmers believed the expected area yields used to set insurance coverage levels were too low. Because litchi productivity varies significantly by tree age and the litchi planted area is expanding rapidly, determining appropriate values for expected area yields and insurance coverage levels appeared to be the biggest challenge in program design. It is hypothesized that additional farmer education about the relationship between area and farm yields and other aspects of area insurance could improve such a program's operation. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the financial outcomes from forage production and RI-PRF insurance interval for two locations in Nebraska. Both locations provide historical forage production and precipitation data, allowing the authors to examine the relation between RI-PRF net income and forage production. Design/methodology/approach The authors focus on evaluating the producer net income and risk (measured as variance of net income) by examining the relation between farm precipitation and production and comparing multiple insurance intervals to no insurance. Each insurance interval will likely have a different relation (basis risk) between observed production and return from insurance and, therefore, a different impact on the variance of net incomes. The impact on variance of net incomes identifies the risk-reducing aspects of RI-PRF insurance intervals. The authors then rank each scenario into four mutually exclusive zones that describe the risk-reducing effectiveness and whether the subsidy is working correctly. Findings The authors found both risk increasing and decreasing insurance intervals exist at both locations. One insurance scenario (low in BBR) provided the highest net income while increasing risk, suggesting a profit maximizing opportunity. RI-PRF reduces net income risk with intervals insuring during high expected precipitation (growing season); while net income risk increases with intervals insuring low expected precipitation (non-growing season, winter months). The farmer would want to insure during the high expected precipitation months, which coincides with the growing season, since RI-PRF lowers the net income risk. For the government, removing net income risk increasing intervals improves the allocation of government resources. Originality/value In this paper, the authors modeled the relation between RI-PRF interval selection using the historical forage production data at two locations in Nebraska. The use of historical forage production data allowed the authors to precisely identify the risk-reducing effectiveness of RI-PRF interval selection.
During the past several years, applying fungicide to wheat has become a more common practice. The availability of cost-effective generic fungicides, as well as the positive yield responses often reported, seem to be the potential drivers for the adoption of such practices by producers. We conducted a wheat fungicide trial in Garden City, KS, to answer the following questions: 1) Do fungicide applications pay? And 2) Can remote sensing technology be used to quantify the efficacy of different fungicide products? The study consisted of two wheat varieties sown on September 29, 2015 (Oakley CL, highly resistant to stripe rust; and TAM 11, highly susceptible to stripe rust), different fungicide products and different times of application. Stripe rust was the major fungal disease impacting wheat yield in southwest Kansas in 2015-16. Fungicide application increased grain yield over the control for all fungicide products. The greatest grain yield resulted from the application of Tebustar. These results suggest that there could be some potential benefits to early season application of fungicide in southwest Kansas, although the majority of the grain yield gain comes from the flag leaf application. Additional years of data are required to make more robust, meaningful interpretations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.